« Student Blogger - When it Comes to Legal Opinions, Does Name-Dropping Work? | Main | Randy Picker on Google's "Don't Be Evil" Motto »

November 18, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c031153ef010535f93722970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Brian Leiter and Scott Shapiro: "Even Further Beyond the Hart-Dworkin Debate":

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Alex Kolod

Just a thought on your disagreement about theoretical disagreement:
When Prof. Leiter says that theoretical disagreement is really either disingenuous or mistaken, I take the mistake to be one about what law is, metaphysically. So, in his positivism, one is disingenuous if he realizes/believes that the law is based on consensus and still presents a theory that suggests, or assumes, otherwise. (I say "assumes" because this would be the case when a legal scholar/philosopher put forth a new interpretive theory claiming it to be descriptive. It cannot actually be descriptive if it is new.) One is mistaken if he suggest, or assumes, a theory that has sees some other basis (not consensus) as the source of law's authority. For that reason, it seems like the disingenuousness that Prof. Shapiro is talking about (based in self interest) is actually mistake for Leiter.

The comments to this entry are closed.